Within the Opinion in Kolin Inşaat Turizm Sanayi ve Ticaret (C-652/22, EU:C:2024:212, hereafter ‘Kolin’), Advocate Common Collins has argued that solely financial operators established in nations occasion to worldwide agreements on public contracts that bind the EU could depend on the provisions of Directive 2014/25/EU. This could indicate that financial operators established in different nations should not entitled to take part in a public contract award process ruled by Directive 2014/25/EU and, consequently, are unable to depend on the provisions of that Directive earlier than Member State courts. For my part, this interpretation is each protectionist and problematic. The ECJ mustn’t observe it. On this weblog I sketch the explanations for this view.
Restricted (worldwide legislation) obligation of equal therapy doesn’t indicate a normal (EU) obligation to exclude or discriminate
The Kolin Opinion considerations the interpretation of Artwork 43 of Directive 2014/25/EU, which could possibly be related to the interpretation of Artwork 25 of Directive 2014/24/EU (on which see A La Chimia, ‘Article 25’ in R Caranta and A Sanchez-Graells (eds), European Public Procurement. Commentary on Directive 2014/24/EU (Edward Elgar 2021) 274-286. Artwork 43 of Dir 2014/25/EU establishes that:
In as far as they’re coated by Annexes 3, 4 and 5 and the Common Notes to the European Union’s Appendix I to the GPA and by the opposite worldwide agreements by which the Union is certain, contracting entities throughout the that means of Article 4(1)(a) shall accord to the works, provides, providers and financial operators of the signatories to these agreements therapy no much less beneficial than the therapy accorded to the works, provides, providers and financial operators of the Union.
AG Collins considers that
It follows that financial operators from non-covered third-countries don’t fall throughout the scope ratione personae of Directive 2014/25 … For the reason that applicant is just not entitled to take part in a process for the award of a public contract ruled by Directive 2014/25, it can’t search to depend on the provisions thereof earlier than a Member State court docket. The referring court docket due to this fact can’t acquire a response to a reference for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of these provisions, since any reply that the Court docket would possibly give to its request wouldn’t have binding impact. That purpose suffices to justify a discovering that this reference for a preliminary ruling is inadmissible (para 33, emphases added).
This place implies a logical leap within the reasoning. Whereas it’s plain that solely financial operators from coated third-countries have a legally enforceable proper to take part in public tenders on equal phrases, it’s not at all clear that different financial operators should essentially be excluded from participation. If that was the plain interpretation and implication of that provision (and Artwork 25 Dir 2014/24/EU), the Fee wouldn’t have wanted to develop the Worldwide Procurement Instrument (IPI) to determine circumstances wherein exclusion of financial operators from non-covered third nations may be mandated. Alongside the identical traces, AG Rantos argued within the Opinion in CRRC Qingdao Sifang and Others (C-266/22, EU:C:2023:399, not accessible in English) that ‘Member States can grant much less beneficial therapy to financial operators from non-covered third events’ (para 65, personal translation from Spanish).
In truth, because the Opinion displays, ‘[a]lmost the entire events to the process earlier than the Court docket take the view that Member States could regulate the participation of financial operators from third-countries in procedures for the award of public contracts’ (para 35). Particularly, the Croatian authorities submitted ‘that EU legislation incorporates no normal prohibition on the participation of financial operators from third-countries in procedures for the award of public contracts within the European Union’ and offered sound arguments in help of that, because the ‘Fee’s Steering on the participation of third-country bidders confirms that proposition the place it states that financial operators from third-countries could also be excluded from these procedures, with out requiring their exclusion’ (para 36). These arguments are additionally aligned with AG Rantos’ CRRC Opinion (paras 72-74). Estonia additionally submitted there isn’t any obligation below EU legislation to restrict participation by financial operators from non-covered third events (para 38). Denmark, France, and Austria additionally thought of that there isn’t any ban stemming from EU legislation, even when the Union has unique competence in relation to the frequent business coverage (paras 39-40). This could have given the AG pause.
As a substitute, as steered by the Fee, AG Collins seeks to help the Opinion’s logical leap in an extra authorized argument primarily based on the remit of the EU’s competence to control the participation of financial operators from third-countries in procurement procedures within the European Union. The important thing difficulty right here is just not whether or not the EU has an unique or a shared competence in procurement, however that AG Collins considers that
… by adopting Article 43 of Directive 2014/25, the European Union has exercised its competence in relation to financial operators established in a rustic occasion to the GPA or to a different worldwide settlement on the award of public contracts by which the European Union is certain. … financial operators established in Türkiye don’t come inside that class. Though the European Union has not exercised its unique competence to determine whether or not financial operators from non-covered third-countries could take part in such procedures, Member States could not depend on that reality with the intention to regain competence to behave in that space (para 50, emphases added).
For the reason that European Union doesn’t seem to have exercised its unique competence to find out entry by financial operators from non-covered third-countries to procedures for the award of public contracts, Member States wishing to take steps to that finish could inform the competent EU establishments of their proposed plan of action with a view to acquiring the requisite authorisation. Nothing within the Court docket’s file signifies that Croatia has taken such a step. Second, unilateral motion by Member States might undermine the European Union’s bargaining place within the context of its efforts to open, on a reciprocal foundation, markets for public contracts in third nations. Third, it might intrude with the uniform utility of EU legislation, since in such circumstances the appliance of Directive 2014/25 ratione personae might fluctuate from one Member State to a different. (para 52, emphases added).
For my part, AG Collins is conflating normative and optimistic evaluation. It’s clear that dissimilar approaches within the Member States undermine the Fee’s bargaining place—thus the necessity to usher in the IPI in addition to different devices such because the International Subsidies Regulation (FSR)—and may lead an absence of uniformity within the utility of the Directive. Nevertheless, these are normative points. From a optimistic standpoint, it’s for my part incorrect to state that the EU has exercised its competence in relation to GPA and different coated third nation operators by Article 43 of Directive 2014/25/EU or, for that matter, Article 25 of Directive 2014/24/EU. The train of the related competence considerations the coming into into these worldwide treaties, not the interior legislative measures put in place to advertise their effectiveness.
To me, it’s clear that the duty to grant equal therapy to GPA and different coated financial operators stems from the GPA or the related worldwide treaty, not the Directive. Artwork 43 Dir 2014/25/EU (and Artwork 25 Dir 2014/24/EU are mere reminders of the obligations below worldwide legislation and can’t alter them. Their omission wouldn’t have made any distinction in coated third nation financial operators’ authorized place. By the identical token, their inclusion can’t serve to prejudice the place of non-covered third nation financial operators. As above, the entire course of resulting in the IPI and FSR would have been totally superfluous. For my part, the Kolin Opinion follows too carefully the dangerously protectionist coverage strategy pushed by the Fee, and does so in a manner that isn’t legally persuasive (or correct, for my part).
‘Tolerance’ of third nation financial operators’ participation should interact authorized safety below the CFR
Furthermore, the Kolin Opinion would open a really harmful path by way of rule of legislation and upholding the effectiveness of the Constitution of Basic Rights, particularly Articles 41 and 47—and permit contracting authorities two bites of the cherry in relation to tenders submitted by financial operators from non-covered third nations. Contracting authorities might ‘tolerate’ participation of non-covered third nation financial operators to see if these are those offering probably the most economically advantageous provide and, if not, or if different (industrial coverage) concerns kicked in, they may merely reject or put aside the tender. This could occur in a context of inadequate ensures.
Even assuming there was an obligation to exclude below Artwork 43 of Directive 2014/28/EU or Artwork 25 of Directive 2014/24/EU, which there’s not, contracting authorities can be certain by the duties below Artwork 41 CFR in relation to EU and coated third-country financial operators. The related responsibility would require a right away exclusion of the not coated financial operators to guard the (in that case) participation rights of these coated. A contracting authority that had not carried out such exclusion might search to profit from the benefits offered by the third nation financial operator in breach of its duties, which isn’t permissible.
Conversely, a contracting authority that had not discharged its responsibility to exclude can be allowed to nonetheless profit from its inaction by discriminating in opposition to and finally excluding at a later stage the tender of the third-country financial operator with out the latter having authorized recourse. This could additionally not be according to the effectiveness of Arts 41 and 47 CFR and positively not according to the doctrine of reliable expectations. As soon as an financial operator or tenderer is just not excluded or rejected on the first alternative, there’s a optimistic and really particular illustration made by the contracting authority that the financial operator and/or its tender is within the run for the contract. This should set off authorized safety—though the precise kind is more likely to rely on home administrative legislation.
Within the case at hand, like in lots of different instances in every day follow, regardless of Kolin not being eligible for equal therapy below Artwork 43 of Directive 2014/24/EU—and thus not having an enforceable proper to take part within the tender and to equal therapy inside it deriving from worldwide legislation—the contracting authority had ‘tolerated’ its participation. The Opinion is obvious that, following the receipt of tenders, the contracting authority ‘concluded that 6 out of the 15 tenders submitted fulfilled the choice standards. [Kolin], an organization established in Türkiye, submitted one of many tenders chosen’ (para 16). Nevertheless, the Opinion doesn’t grant Kolin any rights due to such tolerance.
Opposite to the view held by AG Collins, ‘The Austrian Authorities contends that, though, in precept, Directive 2014/25 doesn’t apply to financial operators from non-covered third-countries, such operators could depend on that directive as soon as a contracting authority has permitted their participation in a process for the award of a public contract award’ (para 26). I share this view. Crucially, this isn’t a difficulty the Opinion explicitly addresses. However that is the principle purpose why the ECJ mustn’t observe the Opinion.
